Kinda told you so...

[BSM1]

we had record low levels a few years ago, which many blamed on -guess what- now we are up to near record highs.

spooky, it's almost as if weather changes naturally, without even angering Gaia

The Devil you say...

 

[metis]

we had record low levels a few years ago, which many blamed on -guess what- now we are up to near record highs.

Which can be an effect of global warming but not necessarily so. With Earth gradually heating up, it tends to create larger weather fronts with more velocity, and that effect makes extremes more likely.

We well know we're in an time period of global warming, and we well know what two of the causes are because these have been known entities for roughly 200 years now: higher levels of CO2 and methane gas. The latter has roughly 20 times the heat retaining power of the former.

Working to deal with global warming has some very positive side-effects, such as lowering levels of pollution, preserving resources, and producing more jobs. It's really a win-win thing to do, but the BIG $ opposes it because they benefit from the status quo, and the right-wing gets their funding from such groups. For all practical purposes, it's nothing short of legalized bribery.

 

[esmith]

And the Antarctic ice melting.
That New Giant Iceberg Is Just the Beginning—Antarctica Is Melting

NASA discovers mantle plume almost as hot as Yellowstone that's melting Antarctica from below

 

[Revoltingest]

we had record low levels a few years ago, which many blamed on -guess what- now we are up to near record highs.

spooky, it's almost as if weather changes naturally, without even angering Gaia

I don't look at records being set....just trends.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't look at records being set....just trends.

you didn't notice the record cold in our state a couple of days ago? Did global warming take the day off?

 

[metis]

you didn't notice the record cold in our state a couple of days ago? Did global warming take the day off?

 

[Revoltingest]

you didn't notice the record cold in our state a couple of days ago? Did global warming take the day off?

There is a vast difference from weather & climate.
The former is far more variable.
Individual weather events do not wag the dog (climate).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a vast difference from weather & climate.
The former is far more variable.
Individual weather events do not wag the dog (climate).

That's only when we are talking about record cold. Any single record high is of course invariably touted as incontrovertible proof of global warming.

But scientifically, record cold like we just had, is far more significant- it absolutely refutes global warming,

The thing is, the greenhouse effect is not a source of heat, but a form of insulation, as such any enhancement would show up primarily and disproportionately at the coldest times and places- warming and smoothing that variability out-- at night, high latitudes, winter. as opposed to record highs, which are primarily driven by direct forcing- sun, wind, clear skies- none of this is controversial scientifically.

And so if we ever pumped enough CO2 to enhance the GH effect, record cold events would be the first thing to disappear

Meanwhile they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that whatever minuscule added insulation is provided by an extra molecule or two CO2 in 10000 of air , it's not enough to insulate even the lowest temps out of their natural range of variability - in other words it's statistically utterly insignificant- which is hardly surprising given the tiny levels, and agrees entirely with the direct empirical math (computer simulated feedback loops not withstanding)

 

[Revoltingest]

That's only when we are talking about record cold. Any single record high is of course invariably touted as incontrovertible proof of global warming.

The fact that some fools on the pro-GW side will make histrionic
unscientific claims does not disprove the existence of GW.
This is just as unscientific claims by GW deniers doesn't
diminish the value of being skeptical.

But scientifically, record cold like we just had, is far more significant- it absolutely refutes global warming,

The thing is, the greenhouse effect is not a source of heat, but a form of insulation, as such any enhancement would show up primarily and disproportionately at the coldest times and places- warming and smoothing that variability out-- at night, high latitudes, winter. as opposed to record highs, which are primarily driven by direct forcing- sun, wind, clear skies- none of this is controversial scientifically.

And so if we ever pumped enough CO2 to enhance the GH effect, record cold events would be the first thing to disappear

Meanwhile they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that whatever minuscule added insulation is provided by an extra molecule or two CO2 in 10000 of air , it's not enough to insulate even the lowest temps out of their natural range of variability - in other words it's statistically utterly insignificant- which is hardly surprising given the tiny levels, and agrees entirely with the direct empirical math (computer simulated feedback loops not withstanding)

Your heat transfer analysis & climate models are less than convincing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The fact that some fools on the pro-GW side will make histrionic
unscientific claims does not disprove the existence of GW.
This is just as unscientific claims by GW deniers doesn't
diminish the value of being skeptical.

Your heat transfer analysis & climate models are less than convincing.

They are not my 'models' , it's basic physics, insulation should smooth out temp variation along with raising temps, it was a predicted signature from the start. It's not even controversial scientifically- but global warming is long past having anything to do with science.

That's why Venus, some 98% CO2, closer to the sun, hundreds of degrees temp, has little or no surface wind, because the massive GH effect means barely a couple of degrees temp variation from pole to equator, and hence nothing to power weather systems.

Same would apply here on Earth, any enhancement of the GH effect would reduce the temp contrast and hence the energy/ violence of weather patterns- but that doesn't sound very scary does it? - so again the science is diametrically opposed to the theory

 

[Revoltingest]

They are not my 'models' , it's basic physics, insulation should smooth out temp variation along with raising temps, it was a predicted signature from the start. It's not even controversial scientifically- but global warming is long past having anything to do with science.

Basic physics suggests to me that adding energy to a system (increase in heat) differentially (to the surface rather than to ocean depths) increases the potential for turbulence. What is your physics background? Specifically in heat transfer & electromagnetic wave interaction with gases?

That's why Venus, some 98% CO2, closer to the sun, hundreds of degrees temp, has little or no surface wind, because the massive GH effect means barely a couple of degrees temp variation from pole to equator, and hence nothing to power weather systems.

One should not generalize too much by comparing systems which differ in equilibrium status.

Same would apply here on Earth, any enhancement of the GH effect would reduce the temp contrast and hence the energy/ violence of weather patterns- but that doesn't sound very scary does it? - so again the science is diametrically opposed to the theory

I see geographic albedo variation due to GW shooting your analysis out of the water (pun intended).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Basic physics suggests to me that adding energy to a system (increase in heat) differentially (to the surface rather than to ocean depths) increases the potential for turbulence. What is your physics background? Specifically in heat transfer & electromagnetic wave interaction with gases?

potential yes, a bowling ball on top of your stairs has potential energy, relative to the elevation at the bottom, without the differential and a release- no work done

Same with weather systems, that's why the most violent weather here involves WARM air from the south colliding with COLD AIR imported from Canukistan-. (I think we should start putting tariffs on that)

it's the contrast, not the trapped energy- its not just Venus that demonstrates this simple physics concept, the most violent storms we know of are on Jupiter and Saturn, very little warmth available there, but lots of contrast

One should not generalize too much by comparing systems which differ in equilibrium status.

I see geographic albedo variation due to GW shooting your analysis out of the water (pun intended).

yes the albedo effect was one of the earlier attaempts to try to get around the impotency of such a tiny level of CO2 being added by human activity.

Remember the ice caps being gone by 2013? snow being a thing of the past? Himalayas melting?

after record global snow cover and antarctic ice continually expanding beyond records, this has gone out of fashion- there are other work arounds, but the central point is that nobody outside of pop media and politics believes adding <2 molecules in 10000 of air can do anything itself- it all relies 100% on computer simulated feedback loops

 

[Revoltingest]

yes the albedo effect was one of the earlier attaempts to try to get around the impotency of such a tiny level of CO2 being added by human activity.

"Get around"?

Remember the ice caps being gone by 2013? snow being a thing of the past? Himalayas melting?

The problems with climate modeling don't defeat observable GW.
They just point to immature models.

after record global snow cover and antarctic ice continually expanding beyond records, this has gone out of fashion- there are other work arounds, but the central point is that nobody outside of pop media and politics believes adding <2 molecules in 10000 of air can do anything itself- it all relies 100% on computer simulated feedback loops

What about the northwest passage opening up?
And Greenland's ice sheet melting?

 

[DavidFirth]

I fully support Revoltingest! The rest of you are poofters.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Get around"?


The problems with climate modeling don't defeat observable GW.
They just point to immature models.

What about the northwest passage opening up?
And Greenland's ice sheet melting?

Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum extent just a few years ago, this was shoehorned into the models as a consequence of global warming affecting currents, increased snowfall from water vapor, calving of icebegs, drifting ice sheets etc. etc, not difficult to do


Now it is near a record low... so what is this evidence of? global cooling? no- still global warming of course!! i.e. name a single climate observation that could possibly falsify anthropomorphic climate theories, there is no such thing- that's why it has persisted for 10's of thousands of years, as long as human beings have held beliefs about these things


In reality, ice caps and glaciers have been melting and retreating for around 19000 years, we should pray this does not stop/reverse in our life time, glacial periods come on very quickly, and we won't be having fascinating academic discussions about how much trust we put in government agency computer models, we'll be too busy starving to death

 

[DennisTate]

Paris deal failing? Global emissions up 2% despite U.S. drop; Chinese pollution skyrockets

Non-binding means non-binding...

The Carl Cantrell theory could be the answer.......

Carl Cantrell.

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."

 

[DennisTate]

Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum extent just a few years ago, this was shoehorned into the models as a consequence of global warming affecting currents, increased snowfall from water vapor, calving of icebegs, drifting ice sheets etc. etc, not difficult to do


Now it is near a record low... so what is this evidence of? global cooling? no- still global warming of course!! i.e. name a single climate observation that could possibly falsify anthropomorphic climate theories, there is no such thing- that's why it has persisted for 10's of thousands of years, as long as human beings have held beliefs about these things


In reality, ice caps and glaciers have been melting and retreating for around 19000 years, we should pray this does not stop/reverse in our life time, glacial periods come on very quickly, and we won't be having fascinating academic discussions about how much trust we put in government agency computer models, we'll be too busy starving to death

Here is a statistic that explains why we so far......
have not experienced significant levels of ocean rise...........
so far........


http://www.habtheory.com/1/100.php

At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!